The General Assembly tripled the distance this summer. Experts say that move could backfire.

By Amanda Milkovits Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- Most of them knew what was coming, but the words still left them shocked and dismayed.

Dozens of Providence men, all convicted of sex crimes, learned Wednesday from the Providence police that they had 30 days to find a new place to live.

For the most part, they'd lived quietly in the neighborhoods for years, checked on by probation officers and police who knew them by name.

They begged for more time.

The law won't allow it, the police said.

"The state has got to stop punishing us!" said Joseph Sorel, an Army veteran convicted of molesting children who has to move from Olneyville Square. "We've paid for our crimes. What's next?"

Since 2008, all convicted sex offenders in Rhode Island have been banned from living within 300 feet of public or private school property. In June, the General Assembly expanded that ban to 1,000 feet for Level III sex offenders, those deemed most likely to re-offend. A map of Providence built by The Journal shows just a few slivers of the city left open to offenders.

Remarkably, law enforcers, civil-rights advocates, supporters of victims of sexual assault and experts who study sex-offender management say the expanded ban could actually decrease public safety by forcing offenders to move frequently or become homeless, destabilizing their lives.

Jill S. Levenson, an associate professor of social work at Barry University in Miami and an expert on the impact of laws like Rhode Island's 1,000-foot ban, said there's no evidence that residence-restriction laws improve public safety.

"The laws are passed with good intentions. It seems like it makes sense: if they're not living close to where children are, they'll have less likelihood to form a relationship and be tempted," said Levenson,

"The irony is," she said, "in some ways it exacerbates factors that contribute to risk."

Rhode Island's 1,000-foot law is the work of Joseph M. McNamara, a Warwick state representative who chairs the state Democratic Party and the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee. Warwick Democrat Sen. Michael McCaffrey sponsored the companion bill in the Senate.

McNamara, who drove the amendment through the General Assembly, said he did so because "parents were panicking" when a sex offender moved into an apartment building 400 feet from a Warwick elementary school -- and another moved into McNamara's neighborhood in a home 800 feet from an elementary school.

Both offenders were complying with state law, but McNamara felt they were too close for comfort. "Being a retired school administrator, when you have a school community in a panic over these situations and children who believe they are going to an area that is insecure, it's not conducive to education."

Thirty states including Rhode Island have residency restrictions on sex offenders, with some ranging up to 2,500 feet from schools, parks and playgrounds. I thought 1,000 feet was reasonable. It's three football fields," he said. Those who violate McNamara's law face up to five years in jail and a $5,000 fine.

The Department of Correction's Sex Offender Board of Review and the Sex Offender Community Notification Unit evaluates the sex offenders and determines their levels before they are released. The levels -- I, II and III -- are based on a felon's likelihood to re-offend, with Level III being the most likely.

Under the new law, the 300-foot ban still applies to Level I and II offenders.

When he introduced his bill to the House Judiciary Committee in April, McNamara told the other members that it was "very simple, cut and dry."

Richard Ferruccio, president of the R.I. Brotherhood of Correction Officers, also voiced support for the bill, saying it would create a "buffer zone" between offenders and schools. "We think families shouldn't have to live in fear of crime in their communities," he said. "School areas should be safe zones.

No one else supported the bill. The Rhode Island Public Defenders Office, The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project, and a case manager who works with the homeless all raised concerns that the legislation would send offenders into shelters or the streets.

Only two legislators, both from Providence, voiced opposition and questioned the impact on public safety. In a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Joseph Almeida, who represents the city's South Side and Washington Park, asked what would happen to offenders who own homes. There was no answer. Rep. Edith Ajello, whose district includes part of the East Side, asked if any maps showed where offenders could live. There weren't.

"I fear," Ajello said to her colleagues on the House floor before voting against the bill, "that people will end up homeless, not reporting where they are, and in those ways being more dangerous than they otherwise would be.''

Nevertheless, the bill passed the House 71 to 2 and the Senate 37 to 0, and Governor Raimondo signed it into law in July.

One of the problems, experts say, is that Level III offenders are not all the same.

Some are recidivists, but most are not. Of the 175 offenders in Rhode Island who are not incarcerated, at least 124 -- or 71 percent -- knew their victims. Some victimized adults, not children.

And nothing in the law prohibits a sex offender from spending all of their waking hours within 1,000 feet of a school, as long as they go outside the zone to sleep at night.

Levenson, who has studied the impact of residency restrictions in Florida and co-authored books about sex-offender treatment, said the laws are often passed out of fear and panic of sex offenders snatching children off playgrounds. In reality, most victims are known to the offenders.

She co-authored a study into a 2,500-foot rule in Jacksonville, Florida, that concluded there was no significant differences in citywide sex crimes or recidivist sex crimes. Other studies, including one from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, have concluded that sex offenders were less likely to be rearrested than other criminal offenders.

Five percent are re-arrested for another sex crime within three years of being released from prison, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. However, their proximity to schools and daycares didn't make any difference in whether they were more likely to re-offend against children, according to another study that Levenson also co-authored.

The important factor isn't distance, but stability. "When people have stable employment, housing and support, they are less likely to go to a life of crime," Levenson said. "But if you disrupt their lives, it increases the risks."

The American Correctional Association and the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers have both warned about the "unintended consequences" of broad residency restrictions on sex offenders that can leave them struggling to find places to live where they can be supervised and cooperate with treatment programs. That's why Day One, the statewide agency that supports victims of sexual abuse, opposes residency bans of any size.

"Day One shares the concerns law enforcement has about the possible consequences of these restrictions," executive director Peg Langhammer said in a statement this week. "We support strong management of sex offenders in our community, and sometimes residency restrictions can have the opposite effect and ultimately create an environment where offenders are more likely to re-offend. While we understand the reasoning and good intentions of restrictions, they can often amount to a false sense of security. We believe that the best sex-offender management consists of proper registration, supervision, and treatment."

There's no one-size-fits-all strategy for sex-offender management, said Levenson, who titled one of her articles, "The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1,000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?"

The strategies that work best are those that are determined for each individual, working with their probation or parole officers, she said. Some people shouldn't live near a school or have any contact with children, while others may not have problems. Some will re-offend, while others will not.

The best sex-offender management policies also must include community education. "It's a hard public dialogue to have," acknowledged Levenson. "People are understandably concerned. There's a lot of fear .... and it's hard to talk about.

"But everybody lives in somebody's neighborhood," she added. "To disrupt stability is not public safety."

When the boundaries expanded to 1,000 feet, all of the homeless shelters in the state except for Harrington Hall in Cranston became off-limits to Level III sex offenders. And Harrington Hall has limits on how many sex offenders it will accept.

While offenders can live near daycare centers or community centers, they have to move if those places open a pre-kindergarten program.

As a result of all of this, three of the 16 men registered in Pawtucket as Level III offenders need to move. In Central Falls, two of the six Level III offenders now have to move under the new law, said Maj. Daniel Barzykowski. "We try to give them time," he said Tuesday. "You want to work with them, so they aren't homeless."

Cranston Police say they started seeing an increase in sex offenders living at Harrington Hall after the shelter at the Urban League of Rhode Island in Providence closed last year.

In Providence, home to 67 of the state's 175 Level III offenders who are not in prison, about half must move, according to the police. Under the new law, and taking into account nonresidential land such as parks and industrial zones, 64 percent of Providence is now off-limits to those offenders.

A Providence offender convicted of molesting a girl he knew has moved into his girlfriend's car because the house he was staying in fell within a 1,000-foot zone. There's no way of knowing for sure where he is night after night.

"That's the difficult thing when they're homeless. It's hard to tell where they're at," said Providence Officer Timothy Rudd, who monitors the 459 registered sex offenders living in Providence. "He could be staying at a house where there's kids and we don't know it. We're doing our job by having them check in every day, but without an address, we can't go out to them."

Providence police and the state probation department called in all of the Level III sex offenders living within 1,000 feet of a school to Wednesday's meeting at the Public Safety Complex.

Some arrived with spouses and family members. One arrived from Bannister House, leaning on a cane and accompanied by a caregiver. Another man, 81 years old and living in a nursing home, was too incapacitated to attend. The man who had lived in McNamara's neighborhood in Warwick signed in at the meeting; he'd moved to Providence months ago.

One of the women in the audience had warned state legislators about the effects of the law before the bills passed. Barbara Kalil, co-director of the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project, sat with her partner, John Freitas, a Level III sex offender. They'd been homeless for six years and for a time had run the tent city known as Camp Runamuck. The apartment they moved into on Smith Hill three years ago was now in a 1,000-foot zone.

Providence police, state police, probation and parole officers, case managers, and corrections director A.T. Wall watched from the back of the auditorium.

Rudd, standing in the front of the room with special assistant attorney general Alison DeCosta and probation supervisor Heidi Duperry, told the group they had to find new homes by Nov. 2. He urged them to study the maps the city commissioner's office had just created at the back of the room.

"Everyone in here is in violation," Rudd said. "We're not making the rules, but it is our responsibility to enforce them."